Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Valley boss rejects Strevens' criticism of Hayes recall
News Shopper
Posts: 1,841
Comments
-
What is all this about us not letting Doc play against us? As if we would let our own player play ridiculous. As for Hayes again it's our decision, our player get over it.0
-
Wish we had never given Paul Hayes to them in the first place now. They would be doomed had it not been for us helping them out.0
-
He was our player who we lent to WW and on terms with a call back that they agreed to.
Next time we won't bother....0 -
We recalled him as we only had BWP fit for the Hudders game0
-
What's he said that's so wrong? Did WW need him more than us for the rest of the season? Almost certainly. Are they disappointed? Of course - he was doing well for them. Is Hayes disappointed at not playing for us? Sure, who wouldn't be?0
-
it doesn't really matter who 'needed him more' - at the end of the day, he is charlton's player and as such charlton can do what the hell they want with him...0
-
[Wycombe manager] Waddock doesn't seem to have the same gripes as Strevens, so I wouldn't get too worked up about this.0
-
C'mom, we would feel the same if the roles were reversed. Surely we can understand Streven's huge frustration. Obviously Charlton has done nothing wrong, but it must be hard for WW to take. It knows that a player who can in all likelihood stop WW from being relegated is not even on the bench at the club which recalled him from loan. I just have a sneaking suspicion that Hayes may have had a few words to say as well.0
-
If I was Powell I would have absolutely INSISTED that Docherty play the full 90 against us0
-
Sponsored links:
-
I have to say that i agree with Strevens............Hayes was knocking goals in for fun with them & returned to us to not even sit on the bench. He played one game (away at huddersfield) and we could have played N'Gussen up from with BWP that day, with Cook or even Callum Harriott taking the left wing role that N:guessen took that day.
I was up there & Hayes didn't excatly pull up trees & we wouldn't have missed him - as we haven't done since.0 -
I have to say that i agree with Strevens............Hayes was knocking goals in for fun with them & returned to us to not even sit on the bench. He played one game (away at huddersfield) and we could have played N'Gussen up from with BWP that day, with Cook or even Callum Harriott taking the left wing role that N:guessen took that day.
Hindsight Golfie...............SCP did the right thing imo.
I was up there & Hayes didn't excatly pull up trees & we wouldn't have missed him - as we haven't done since.0 -
It was signalled right at the start that Doc & Hayes couldn't play for us. Imagine if Wycombe were safe in mid-table, but we still needed points for promotion. And Hayes (who may well have a promotion incentive in his CAFC contract) misses a sitter....we know Paul or Doc would not engage in any shenanigans, but how do they prove that?
So it's best all-round that they don't play for WW - and as I say this was written into the deal0 -
Think Wycombe have a bloody cheek!0
-
......and we could have played N'Gussen up from with BWP that day, with Cook or even Callum Harriott taking the left wing role that N:guessen took that day.
Callum Harriott = wunderkind
Talk about great expectations!
;o)
0 -
Think Wycombe have a bloody cheek!
Strevens maybe, but not 'Wycombe' - see earlier post. Waddock completely accepts the situation0 -
Doesn't matter if we could have played N'Guessan up front for the Huddersfield game. Fact is that SCP didn't want to.
If anything it would be nice for Wycombe to actually show a bit of gratitude that two of our players have given them a fighting chance to stay up in the first place!0 -
Our need to have him was greater and I think the boys are disappointed we didn't get to keep him until the end of the season. He could have scored a few vital goals for us but that's football. He's Charlton's player, we have to get on with it but of course we miss him.
Hardly ranting. People should read these things before becoming consumed with moral outrage.0 -
Why all the abuse of WW? News Shopper's emotive "criticism" headline hasn't helped I suppose and the use of the phrase "hits out" in the Bucks paper. But these are journos' phrases and bear no relation to what was actually said. The guy was just stating the position from their point of view. Read the article - not the headlines or the journos' fleshing out. He said "He's Charlton's player, we have to get on with it but of course we miss him." What's wrong with that?
0 -
Well said, cafcfan!
0 -
Sponsored links:
-
If I was Powell I would have absolutely INSISTED that Docherty play the full 90 against us
A soon to be ex-player being allowed to play against us? Ok I suppose so, obviously there's no incentive for him to play out of his skin and prove something to us.0 -
Mate when he played for us he was being paid, he was on win bonuses, he had loads of incentives
The man is a toe injury away from a blue badge
Lovely man I'm sure but finished as a footballer in a red shirt and even a footballer in the top 4 tiers0 -
he is proper shit0
-
Don't know why they are complaining, they have no right ! They are OUR players0
-
This is just the WW manager playing mind games.0
-
This is just the WW manager playing mind games.
where's your evidence for this?0 -
Everything Strevens said seems fair to me, he's naturally expressing disappointment that Hayes was recalled when his goals could have kept Wycombe up. Indeed I imagine Hayes would have liked to have scored the goals to keep them up, all players like adulation and strikers enjoy scoring goals. Imagine we had a loan striker who was pushing us to promotion, until he was recalled, and we then missed out, naturally we would be disappointed too.
Journalists, of course, like simplifying things with emotive phrases, 'hit out', 'slam' etc0 -
It was signalled right at the start that Doc & Hayes couldn't play for us. Imagine if Wycombe were safe in mid-table, but we still needed points for promotion. And Hayes (who may well have a promotion incentive in his CAFC contract) misses a sitter....we know Paul or Doc would not engage in any shenanigans, but how do they prove that?
So it's best all-round that they don't play for WW - and as I say this was written into the deal
The Doc probably also has such a clause .
0 -
It was signalled right at the start that Doc & Hayes couldn't play for us. Imagine if Wycombe were safe in mid-table, but we still needed points for promotion. And Hayes (who may well have a promotion incentive in his CAFC contract) misses a sitter....we know Paul or Doc would not engage in any shenanigans, but how do they prove that?
So it's best all-round that they don't play for WW - and as I say this was written into the deal
The Doc probably also has such a clause which could involve clinching the title .0 -
Doc reckons Wycombe will smash us:
http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/sport/football/wanderers/9659953.Blues_must_end_Addicks__high_with_the_Doc/0
